I'm going for a minor in economics, and in every single one of their classes when Marx gets inevitably brought up all they have to say about him is Am I stupid or something? Weren't the majority of Marx's theories about the capitalist system and not how a future civilization should be built? What the hell does the fall of the Soviet Union have to do with like 75% of what Marx said? Just how common is this lazy form of teaching? Does it get any better? I've only got one or two classes to go before I finish my minor
Pic related, it's from my Micro textbook. Note that there's no mention of the food shortages that plagued the neoliberal administration
Fourth year Econ students at my uni have to read Capital, so obviously some mainstream economists still see value in teaching his work.
Parker Turner
I also took a few econ courses a while ago. This graph debunks all of Marxist theory smh mainstream/not so mainstream economists get the bullet right after liberals…or before liberals…I dunno, this is to be discussed by the central committee
No. Why would they? Marx is irrelevant to an individual in today's economy
Lincoln Smith
They don't even read Adam Smith or Ricardo. Probably. Yes. That isn't too bad (aside from calling Maduro hand-picked).
Luis Turner
Hell no. You'd be lucky if 5% of them even attempt to learn the fundamentals of Marxian economics, let alone actually read Capital. Hell, my Econ 101 professor didn't even understand Keynes, it was pretty much "Keynesianism is when the government runs deficits during recessions. This is bad because it interferes with the free market."
Tyler Wilson
My favorite shit, the “Econ 101” deadweight loss of taxation.
Dylan Perez
TBH this is standard practice all around the academia. Philosophy professors not having read Kant, but analytical books on him, biology profs not having read Gould & Lewontin but popular series by Dawkins, etc.
The university under capitalism is just basically a state apparatus for propagating the ruling ideology.
Camden Clark
Where the hell is that, and what is the rationale? Do they really read all of it, or just bits?
Jason Price
This seems to be very much the situation where I'm going to school. I took a look at the econ "major" we offer and it's ridiculously unrigorous in the actual economic theory aspect. The econ students will take more math courses than they do econ courses, and the professors are all neoclassicalists, keynesians, or some kind of lmaoancap.
Joshua Adams
This describes my experience as well. Also math profs in the last two semesters:
Why are they important to understand analytics and biology
Anthony Green
Uhm?
Carter Wilson
Gould & Lewontin and Kant. Why are they important in understanding biology and analytics?
Isaac Russell
Congratulations, you've learned that the modern university has been turned into nothing more than a money making scam with these professors nothing more than prostitutes whose sole purpose is to do what's good for business.
Liam Johnson
No, they are. I'm not being sarcastic. You are faced with extremely stupid, yet majority opinions and propaganda. Do not doubt yourself. The level of discourse against Marxism that is allowed a free pass, even in academia or published papers, not even mentioning the media, is extremely low. Yet it gets a pass.
Luke Ross
I believe is asking why Kant is important for understanding philosophy. And why reading Gould & Lewontin is important for understanding biology. Not sure how "analytics" got thrown in there.
Jonathan Reed
Please rephrase and expand on your question here son
John Williams
Let's try this Because they advanced the notion of punctuated equilibrium to explain the Cambrian explosion Because Kant is the last mainstream philosopher the analytics read before they go find some tiny little bunker or bolthole to masturbate themselves and pick nits
Dominic Wood
How do they justify the fact that tax money goes into roads, infrastructure, police, law, etc. that is all 100% needed to even be able to make a profit as a capitalist? Do they think economics is like when you have five shipwrecked people on an abandoned island?!
Marx isn't concerned with pumping out useable axioms and numbers for capitalist businesses and the bourgeois state - which is what "economics" mean in our times. Modern economics is basically consumer behaviour but in economistic terms. Of course the individual ought it read Marx to understand his predicament but Marx doesn't give you any "life hacks" as to how to make a profit, which is what the neoclassical economists try to do.
Carter Cox
The funny thing is, is that Adam Smith was a Tumblrina by Zig Forumstard standards
Ryder Brown
I'm only going for a minor because I just so happened to take a lot of econ classes for my electives I've already got a real minor in the form of biology, which funnily enough, in an ecology class my professor started talking about crisis theory So technically professors in other departments know more about Marxism than the economics department from what I've seen lol
Jordan White
Leafland. Our economics department is mostly keynesians, so it makes sense that they would make their students read about why unregulated capitalism is self destructive. Idk I’m not an Econ student.
Kayden Powell
One thing which is funny about neoclassical economics is that it does occasionally need theories which are actually in line with reality and you'll find some of them have marxist origins, though they never mention it. To give two examples, the theories business cycles and creative destruction have marxist origins. You learn the theories but not where they come from.
John Brooks
Marx is controversial and professors are stooges who enforce the status quo, so they will not go out of their way to think differently from the stream of ideas pushed towards them. Even ones with tenure are not willing to bring up Marx because they want raises and head of department status. Business as usual. Also, a lot of economics and other business discipline professors are flat out bourgeois apologists and neoliberal retards.
Daniel Cook
IDK how they could get people to read the whole thing and come to that conclusion. I assume it's cherry picking.
Brody Sanchez
What the fuck am I looking at and how the hell is this supposed to debunk the law of value?
I think analytic philosophy is way past Kant. Most of its mathematical logic and Wittgenstein now.
Landon Roberts
I must admit I'm somewhat bemused by this given ol all-philosophical-problems-are-shallow-when-material-friction-is-added Wittgenstein is the gravedigger of analytic philosophy
Xavier Collins
It’s recently taken a step backwards from the groundbreaking work Wittgenstein did, but that’s mainly due to the reversals in global class struggle and working class insurgency mainly. Hopefully when the movement picks up from all the awful structural deficiencies we’ll see a Renaissance in materialist philosophy again.
Elijah Adams
I don't think I've ever heard a coherent argument against the LTV presented by a right-winger. Right-wingers in general simply do not know what predictions the LTV makes and how it reaches those predictions. They have fundamental misunderstandings of the theory, and then they argue against their own strawmen. I mean, the mudpies, value conflation, babble about supply-demand etc. The Critique of the Gotha Programme literally begins with "Labor is not the source of all wealth."
I'm willing to bet that most people who argue against the LTV haven't actually studied it past some investopedia.com article or some shit, and are just parroting the same old garbage. I always see communists engage in good faith with these fucking people, and unsurprisingly the other side never returns that good faith.
Mason Bell
Yes, bourgeois economics relies on oversimplified models.
I like how this graph implies that the taxes are literally increasing the value of the product, rather than the reality which is that companies are forced to take tax into account while setting their price. Of course in USA, taxes aren't displayed as part of price, so companies can fool themselves into thinking they raise the ROP by "shifting" the Purchase Tax onto the consumer… thereby increasing cost of Labor Power, which the companies have to pay for. But if we just looked at this graph, we might conclude that the government is actually conjuring value out of thin air… through taxes on existing circulating money values! So no wonder free marketers think taxes cause inflation. And MMTers go the other way to conclude inflation isn't real. Holy shit.
Easton Moore
Deadweight loss can just as well be an argument against non-pareto-efficient pricing (so any price above the cost) as a similar triangle appears when a corporation tries to make extra profits. They almost never give that as an example.
